What about when the viewfinder covers over 100% such as a rangefinder?
–
dpollittJun 21 '12 at 22:11

The purpose of less than 100% is to keep dumb people from doing dumb things and then getting mad at the camera. Unfortunately it has become a bit of a exclusive high end feature. I understand why point-and-shoot cameras have less than 100%, but you'd think reasonable enthusiast could be trusted with 100%.
–
Olin LathropJun 21 '12 at 23:53

Heh. Search engines have trouble with punctuation, so I thought it'd be best to have the word in the title. Also, I thought it important that the 7D is far from the only camera with this feature.
–
mattdmJun 22 '12 at 13:13

3 Answers
3

In my experience, transitioning from 95% to 100% made a significant difference in my photography.

The 5% can hide a decent amount. Shooting a lot of wide-angle means that there can be a lot in the missing 5%. It's easy with my 10-22mm on my 7D to capture the foot of my tripod in that extra 5% and I'd rather not crop the image.

You can't easily judge what you're missing. Remember, lenses don't see the same way we do. Unlike the human eye, that 5% in the lens will change in size with every focal length change. Just in the studio setting, 85mm will maybe grab an inch of more background, while 30mm could grab a foot (not measured, but an example). You could be off your background and you wouldn't even know it until you see the image.

Information is power. Knowing what is in the extra 5% can only benefit you. Does it impact the user experience? Definitely. There are many things to consider when taking a photograph. Not having to worry about the extra 5% lets you focus on the other things. In nature photography, I had to always think about whether I would get that road in the extra 5%, potentially causing me to crop. In architecture, I need to know if I can keep empty space around the building or if the neighboring building will block it. With 100%, I can see that and simply move, whereas 95%, I'm chimping.

Make it right in the camera. For those saying that you can simply crop to the viewfinder, don't listen to them. Every tool that helps you capture the picture that you intended to capture is a benefit. A benefit that completely eliminates a potential need for post production is a big win.

Is it worth the money? That's the million dollar question. It's up to you.

An extra benefit that you may find more important than the extra 5% of viewfinder with the 7D is the brightness and size of the viewfinder itself. Composing in image in the 7D viewfinder is heaven compared to the 50D. This only pertains to the 7D, though. I don't know if this is common in 100% viewfinders.

My opinion? There are many other factors in a camera to consider besides 100% viewfinder. I will say this though, when you want to test out a camera, usually the first thing you do is pick it up and look through the viewfinder. I was sold based on the viewfinder alone.

Anything less prevents from properly framing your shots. If what goes in your frame is important to you then you have to get a camera with a 100% coverage viewfinder.

If you shoot with a cropped viewfinder, typically around 95%, you will be getting 5% unexpected things in your frame. You can guess and zoom in for to attempt and compensate but it is extremely difficult to do so precisely. As Jay Maisel says: Everything in your frame either helps or hurts you.

A 100% coverage viewfinder has long been a high-end feature and a camera with one used to cost several thousands but as more and more people become more interested in photography, it slowly trickled down in price into the sub-$1000 range.

Once you get used to a 100% coverage viewfinder, it is very frustrating to use a camera with a cropped viewfinder. Digitally it is much easier to show a 100% coverage image and all SLDs show 100% view. Most DSLRs now also have Live-View which, with the exception of Sony DSLRs and one defunct Olympus model (depending on the mode), all show 100% in Live-View, yet people have good reasons not to use Live-View all the time, so it is not a replacement for a 100% coverage viewfinder.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that anything less than 100% prevents you properly framing your shots. A few years ago, I used a Canon 350D. It did not have 100% viewfinder, and I simply adapted, KNOWING that the picture I took would have a little extra on all sides. So I took my picture knowing this, accounting for this, and I got great shots with it. Whilst I'm now of course used to 100% and love it, I think it disingenuous to say its frustrating, or somehow prevents you framing shots.
–
MikeJun 21 '12 at 7:55

1

It depends entirely on what you are shooting, if it's mostly portraits, or events with a fast lens and shallow depth of field then it often doesn't matter if there is a fraction more blur surrounding your subject. If you are into perfecting landscapes in camera, then yes you'll want 100%, but if you don't have it at the very worse you'll have to crop your images slightly to have them match the viewfinder. It's nice to have 100% but by no means essential.
–
Matt GrumJun 21 '12 at 8:50

3

If I'm not mistaken, cropping a 15 MP image taken with a camera with 95% viewfinder to what you saw in the viewfinder leaves you with an image of 14.25 MP. (15 MP * 0.95) The practical result is a slight net loss of image detail, which in practice matters very little in most situations. If you need that extra resolution, by all means do spend the money on 100% viewfinder coverage (and likely get a bunch of extra perks as well), but saying that "anything less prevents from properly framing your shots" is only true if you do no post-processing.
–
Michael KjörlingJun 21 '12 at 11:56

2

@Mike - I find it incredibly frustrating and I have a lot of experience with this because I use cameras with 100% and less than 100% regularly. Even if I attempt to zoom in a little to prevent unwanted elements from showing up, they still do sometimes. Maybe after years of using the same camera I would get used to it but there is no way I would buy a camera with less than 100% coverage.
–
ItaiJun 21 '12 at 12:29

@MichaelKjörling - Its no the resolution that is concerning. As you said it is negligible but as the loss of angle of view and mostly the worry of not knowing what will show up in your shots.
–
ItaiJun 22 '12 at 1:59

The percentage dictates how much of the capture scene is visible to you before the capture. A true WYSIWYG situation is a 100% viewfinder because what you see with your eye will be what your final image gets. Anything less than 100% means that there are elements that will be captured in the scene that you cannot see at the time you look through the viewfinder.

The importance of that depends on the photographer. For the average person, that's probably not a huge issue because they often center frame and aren't as worried about the composition as they are the moment. For professionals, or those more focussed on image structure, a 100% viewfinder means that they don't have surprises and can be assured that the scene they view is the scene they get. So, judge that requirement based on your need. I, for one, much prefer having a 100% view...

The professional would probably post-process their images, including cropping if necessary to present the desired result. It would be a lot worse to have 105% viewfinder coverage than 95% in almost any situation, IMO. Extra image elements can be cropped out, whereas missing elements cannot be added in later (despite what's shown on TV...).
–
Michael KjörlingJun 21 '12 at 11:58